----- Original Message -----
From: Bearpecs at aol.com
> In a message dated 5/6/2004 10:38:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>kwrandolph at email.com writes:
> Therefore I have no problem calling
> them Aramaic.
> You can call them Aramaic, but that negates your whole argument. If they are
> Hebrew and Aramaic and Akkadian and ??, then they are simply common cultural
> words and don't indicate anything about what language the Jews spoke.
It doesnt negate my argument.
Hebrew originally had a different set of names for the months, today it has the names that were learned from Aramaic, which, apparently, Aramaic previously learned from Akkadian. My question is why? The substitution of Aramaic names suggests that Hebrew was no longer natively spoken. I dont say it proves it, but it is suggestive.
Karl W. Randolph.
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm